An academic has urged religious authorities to consider debating Muslim speakers they disagree with instead of clamping down on them.
Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid, a political science professor at Universiti Sains Malaysia, told FMT he believed it was always better to engage with people one disagreed with than to resort to legal action.
“What is wrong in engaging with these so-called liberal Muslims?” he said. “A lot of the forums they speak at are open anyway. Authorities can send their own scholars who are able to converse in the English language and engage actively in the question and answer session and debate them there and then.
“That’s better than listening through the grapevine and placing restrictions before you even hear them out.”
He said resorting to restrictions would not only discredit those who put the controls in place but would also dishonour Islam.
“You are portraying Islam as a religion that obstructs or avoids discussions when the truth is that it is not such a religion.
“Prophet Muhammad engaged with Christians in a very famous dialogue. Although the Muslims and Christians could not come to an agreement about Jesus, the Prophet still accorded them respect and even allowed them to pray in his mosque.
“We’re speaking there about people of different religions. Here, we’re talking about views which come from within Islam. And these Muslims, no matter how liberal you think they are, have their own references and sources from reputable scholars, even if those scholars come from the West.”
[...]
Last August, Indonesian scholar Mun’im Sirry gave a lecture at the club and the Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) subsequently labelled him as a deviated Muslim.
A month later, officers from the Federal Territory Islamic Department (Jawi) arrested Turkish author Mustafa Akyol following his speech on apostasy at a forum organised by IRF and G25.
Jawi said Akyol had violated an offence under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act, which requires speakers on Islamic themes to have officially recognised credentials. Before the Akyol incident, it was generally thought that the rule applied only to speeches in mosques and suraus.
Fauzi said it was important to ask whether the authorities were being fair in applying the rule on credentials.
“You may disagree with Akyol, but if you want to apply the law of credentials, then apply it on the preacher Zakir Naik as well.
“Has Naik applied for credentials? Has anyone questioned whether he has credentials or not? Not only do we not question that, we even grant him permanent residence.
“Don’t be selective just because we have a prejudged view of some people. If you want to apply a law, apply it fair and square, including on people who are invited by government bodies.”
He said Islam in Malaysia was in danger of becoming Islamism if the authorities persisted in using legal means to suppress views departing from their own.
“It can become an Islam that you adhere to because you’re being watched by the legal apparatus, not out of your conscience or conscious decision.
“Why isn’t the spirit of Islam being applied instead of using an arbitrary yardstick to take action on people we may not like. This doesn’t mean that I agree with Akyol, but he has the right to say what he says and I can debate with him if I want to.”
He also questioned whether Malaysian Muslims expected to be treated unfairly in countries like Iran, where the Sunni expression of Islam might be considered deviant.
Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid, a political science professor at Universiti Sains Malaysia, told FMT he believed it was always better to engage with people one disagreed with than to resort to legal action.
“What is wrong in engaging with these so-called liberal Muslims?” he said. “A lot of the forums they speak at are open anyway. Authorities can send their own scholars who are able to converse in the English language and engage actively in the question and answer session and debate them there and then.
“That’s better than listening through the grapevine and placing restrictions before you even hear them out.”
He said resorting to restrictions would not only discredit those who put the controls in place but would also dishonour Islam.
“You are portraying Islam as a religion that obstructs or avoids discussions when the truth is that it is not such a religion.
“Prophet Muhammad engaged with Christians in a very famous dialogue. Although the Muslims and Christians could not come to an agreement about Jesus, the Prophet still accorded them respect and even allowed them to pray in his mosque.
“We’re speaking there about people of different religions. Here, we’re talking about views which come from within Islam. And these Muslims, no matter how liberal you think they are, have their own references and sources from reputable scholars, even if those scholars come from the West.”
[...]
Last August, Indonesian scholar Mun’im Sirry gave a lecture at the club and the Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) subsequently labelled him as a deviated Muslim.
 |
Mun’im Sirry |
A month later, officers from the Federal Territory Islamic Department (Jawi) arrested Turkish author Mustafa Akyol following his speech on apostasy at a forum organised by IRF and G25.
 |
Mustafa Akyol |
Jawi said Akyol had violated an offence under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act, which requires speakers on Islamic themes to have officially recognised credentials. Before the Akyol incident, it was generally thought that the rule applied only to speeches in mosques and suraus.
Fauzi said it was important to ask whether the authorities were being fair in applying the rule on credentials.
“You may disagree with Akyol, but if you want to apply the law of credentials, then apply it on the preacher Zakir Naik as well.
“Has Naik applied for credentials? Has anyone questioned whether he has credentials or not? Not only do we not question that, we even grant him permanent residence.
“Don’t be selective just because we have a prejudged view of some people. If you want to apply a law, apply it fair and square, including on people who are invited by government bodies.”
He said Islam in Malaysia was in danger of becoming Islamism if the authorities persisted in using legal means to suppress views departing from their own.
“It can become an Islam that you adhere to because you’re being watched by the legal apparatus, not out of your conscience or conscious decision.
“Why isn’t the spirit of Islam being applied instead of using an arbitrary yardstick to take action on people we may not like. This doesn’t mean that I agree with Akyol, but he has the right to say what he says and I can debate with him if I want to.”
He also questioned whether Malaysian Muslims expected to be treated unfairly in countries like Iran, where the Sunni expression of Islam might be considered deviant.
There are several reasons why it's impossible for JAWI or JAKIM to debate with Muslim speakers they disagree with, namely:
(a) JA-organisations' objective is not about engaging in intellectual-philosophical research or enlightenment or further knowledge of Islam but about ΓΌber control, total domination and secured obedience of the Muslim community for their own interests and career-longevity, so why should-would they want to debate,
(b) on top of (a) above, shit, they might lose lah - malu man!
(c) they lack the intellectual capacity to do so,
(d) they prefer brutish bullying tactics and draconian strategy, eg. as in the cases of Nik Raina, Kassim Ahmad and the customers at Zouk Nightclub,
(e) or more conveniently label people they don't like or dare to debate as deviant or liberal,
(f) they don't have the balls nor brains to engage anyone in debate on Islam.
etc etc etc.
See also:
(1) JAWI - bullying of women and old man.
(2) Why should taxes from non-Muslim sources fund JA-organizations?.
(a) JA-organisations' objective is not about engaging in intellectual-philosophical research or enlightenment or further knowledge of Islam but about ΓΌber control, total domination and secured obedience of the Muslim community for their own interests and career-longevity, so why should-would they want to debate,
(b) on top of (a) above, shit, they might lose lah - malu man!
(c) they lack the intellectual capacity to do so,
(d) they prefer brutish bullying tactics and draconian strategy, eg. as in the cases of Nik Raina, Kassim Ahmad and the customers at Zouk Nightclub,
(e) or more conveniently label people they don't like or dare to debate as deviant or liberal,
(f) they don't have the balls nor brains to engage anyone in debate on Islam.
etc etc etc.
 |
lelong lelong, bola2 spare untuk yang ta'ada |
See also:
(1) JAWI - bullying of women and old man.
(2) Why should taxes from non-Muslim sources fund JA-organizations?.
What's there to debate? Hudud? Let Naik and Akyol debate that. It would be interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bloody shame... bolihland has no able hands & has to depend on missionaries to fight the war of their selfdom's alifbata!
DeletePerhaps, that's the persistfnt problem of closed mind coming out from tahfiz environment!